Editorial: Can we manage air safety without unwelcome searches?

Wednesday

Nov 24, 2010 at 12:01 AMNov 24, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Today is one of the busiest flying days of the year, which makes it a high-anxiety day for those traveling, an even-higher-anxiety day for those coping with the Transportation Security Authority's new full-body scan/enhanced patdown procedures. For that Americans have one Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to thank, the so-called "underwear bomber" who unsuccessfully tried to bring down an American airliner last Christmas.

Today is one of the busiest flying days of the year, which makes it a high-anxiety day for those traveling, an even-higher-anxiety day for those coping with the Transportation Security Authority's new full-body scan/enhanced patdown procedures. For that Americans have one Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to thank, the so-called "underwear bomber" who unsuccessfully tried to bring down an American airliner last Christmas.

Anything beyond a few weeks represents ancient history, of course, so all many Americans know is how honked off they are by another hassle being added to flying the not-so-friendly skies. Among them would be John Charles Tyner, now something of a folk hero for representing the frustrations of the "you touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested" Everyman after a filmed altercation with TSA officials in San Diego earlier this month.

There are some 385 of these body scanners at 70 U.S. airports now - Peoria is, so far, not among them - with plans to install 1,000 by the end of next year. Judging by the angry reactions of many Americans, well, we'll see.

The body scanners go beyond the traditional metal detectors many of us are familiar with, taking a beneath-the-clothes picture to ensure passengers aren't carrying and concealing some weapon. If that sets off alarm bells, or you refuse to go through it, you are then subject to an aggressive body search that can include over-the-clothes genital contact.

Americans accustomed to civil liberties are none too pleased, on multiple fronts. The first would be the invasion of privacy occasioned by airport screeners getting to look at them naked, even if precautions are taken to guarantee some small measure of anonymity.

Second would be fears of the health risks, including cancer, associated with radiation from the scanners, particularly for children, pregnant women, the ill and elderly. Some University of California scientists and physicians have raised "red flags" about the use of the X-ray machines, while others say passengers absorb more cosmic radiation in flight than they do at the security gate. The American College of Radiology says the "backscatter technology" in play here "uses extremely weak X-rays," with some 1,000 scans equaling but one standard chest X-ray. In other words, effectively safe. Whom to believe?

Third would be the very hands-on search that some have likened to a sexual assault. From what we can gather, that has precious few defenders, even if, as the TSA insists, it involves but 3 percent of passengers.

Conspiracy theories have abounded over this - it's all about somebody making money, including former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, now in the private sector with a client that stands to make $250 million in scanner sales. Certainly the TSA has become the butt - no pun intended - of jokes. (Heard the latest? "Can't see London, can't see France, till we see your underpants.") There's an organized effort to get Americans to opt out of the scans today, making the lines at airports that much more unbearable. Lawsuits have already been filed.

The TSA and Uncle Sam are not without their supporters, who say this is merely the price, and a small one, of ensuring our safety; that terrorists have not stopped trying to kill Americans; that the primary objectors are those crybabies who think nothing of profiling those of dark skin and thick accent but scream foul when that playing field is leveled to include them. They appear to be in the minority.

Far more common are those who say this is a huge expenditure of funds with precious little return in terms of security. Not even Israel, perhaps the most security-conscious nation in the world, employs these machines. They cannot detect explosives inside a body cavity, do poorly in detecting thin plastics and liquids, and would not have caught the underwear bomber. This is again reactive, akin to fighting the last war. It makes everyone a suspect and may violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches, one more indication the terrorists have won. The bigger threat may be with air cargo. No nation can be risk-free, and there is something to Ben Franklin's admonition that "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's fascinating how liberals who had no trouble then beating up George W. Bush for compromising civil liberties have traded places with conservatives who have no reservations now about ripping into Barack Obama.

Finally, the most relevant argument of all may be that it's just inefficient, increasing the hassle factor to an intolerable level for many. As one person wrote to the Journal Star last week, "Until this changes, my children and I will not be flying." If enough Americans follow suit, well, that's bad news for the airlines, which is bad news for the businesses that depend on them, which is bad news for the economy, which is bad news for taxpayers. As always, the dollar decides. We can envision the lobbyists swooping in on the Capitol already, roosting on the dome in preparation for the return of legislators from holiday.

In the last decade, the best insurance against attack has been solid intelligence that has interrupted plots before potential terrorists ever got to the gate. The TSA may mean well, but practically speaking, it may be back to the drawing board.

Journal Star of Peoria, Ill.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.